Sometimes, when they're carrying pitchforks. -Dan
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Baker Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:12 AM To: Chat forum Subject: Re: [Jchat] <small rant> Is it worth it to engage idiots over moronic comments about array languages? Is it worth engaging idiots commenting moronically about any topic? On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > In such endlessly repeated scenes, it's not worth working yourself up. > In fact, it's sometimes not even worth coming up with new ways of responding. > Why bother? Often it's best to simply defer to the luminaries of > history who have commented on this topic (nobody wants to fight you > when you're standing on the shoulders of giants). For example: > > "There are two methods in software design. One is to make the > program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to > make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors." > > -- C.A.R. Hoare, founder in the field of computer program > correctness and reliability, and laureate of computer science's > highest award (the Turing award) > > "Only short programs have any hope of being correct." > > -- Arthur Whitney, computer scientist & inventor of the > array-language K, which all of Wall St uses to predict markets > > "The fewer moving parts, the better" > > -- Every engineer of every discipline throughout time, ever > (ok, fine: every engineer whose first attempt didn't kill him) > > But, you know, it's hard to get someone to change his mind, and maybe > some would find the preceding unconvincing. I mean sure, some guy who > got rich creating an array programming language and a weirdo obsessed > with the reliability of computer systems support the concept of short, > clear programs. But that's just 2 guys and the entire enterprise of > human engineering throughout time. That doesn't tell us anything. > Can't we dig deeper, get to the bottom of things? Surely there's no > philosophical reason we should prefer simplicity? > > "Let thy speech be short, comprehending much in a few words." > -- The bible (Ecclesiasticus, which, ironically, the > Protestants cut out) > > "It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what other men say > in whole books - what other men do not say in whole books." > > -- from the other end of the spectrum, Friedrich "God is dead" > Nietzsche (demonstrating this is not a particularly localized > sentiment) > > "It is with words as with sunbeams. The more they are > condensed, the deeper they burn." > > -- Robert Southey, Poet Laureate of the British empire > > "Brevity is the soul of wit" > > -- William Shakespeare, another English guy (note, here "wit" > meant "wisdom", not "humor") > > Ah, but perhaps we've strayed too far from software engineering; after > all, plays and poems are very different things from programs, aren't they? > Well, let's see if we can find a bridge from the wisdom of the Bard to > modern computer programming. > > "Language is an instrument of human reason, and not merely a > medium for the expression of thought" > > -- George Boole, guy who invented zeros and ones. > > Not bad. The very founder of computer science talking about reasoning > with language. Still, not much in there about being concise, only expressive. > Let's see if we can do better. > > "By relieving the brain of all unnecessary work, a good > notation sets it free to concentrate on more advanced > problems, and in > effect increases the mental power of the race." > > -- A.N. Whitehead; bah, a mathematician. > > "The quantity of meaning compressed into small space by > algebraic signs, is another circumstance that facilitates the > reasonings > we are accustomed to carry on by their aid." > > -- Charles Babbage; that's better, the guy who built the > world's first computer. > > Still though, Babbage built his computer before there was even > electricity. Can't we get a little more modern, a little more > relevant to practical software design? Ok, let's turn the clock > forward, but continue with the theme of using language to express ourselves briefly and clearly: > > "Programming languages, because they were designed for the > purpose of directing computers, offer important advantages as tools > of thought. However, most programming languages are decidedly > inferior and are little used as tools of thought in ways that would > be considered significant. > > [In contrast] APL is a general purpose language which > originated in an attempt to provide clear and precise expression in > writing and teaching, and which was implemented as a programming > language only after several years of use and development." > > Unfortunately, I've lost the reference for this one (I know the guy > has something in common with the first person I quoted, Hoare). Maybe > you could ask your commentor friend to look it up. > > -Dan > > PS: The real irony is, your friend doesn't even seem to recognize the > value of /being able to quote the entire program/ he's complaining about! > Try that with Java! You're going to need a bigger comment box. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- John D. Baker [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
